London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I have listened to this a few times now, it’s surreal.
I wouldn’t mind if it was at least slightly balanced and objective
1. They materially ignore the prospects and any value they offer, other than a light touch reference to them early on. This surely has to be at least partly counterbalanced against their play down of the Buchan recovery rate 2. They listen to a single ‘expert’ view rather than trying to find a counter view to at least balance things and give a different perspective 3. They state up front they have sold their shares on a single piece of advice from a ‘red’ expert who has made contact with them and tapped his broad peer group 4. To DU’s point they don’t reference the oil quantity 5. They ignore the carbon strategy and it’s attraction to a broader range of players/funders . 6. They don’t consider the interplay with other North Sea players and the clear benefit one of those may gain from this partnership, alongside JOG 7. They assume that their contact knows better than Schlumberger. They categorise the development as exploration risk, rather than seeing the security it offers over large scale exploration risk. They offers 35 + years certainty plus the opportunity to further explore with a degree of certainty 8. They dismiss the view of all the brokers, including WHI - who are more likely to be neutral as they are not the house broker 9. They don’t reference the recent NED appointment, nor his near faultless performance in the North Sea to date 10. Alarmingly as an opener they are not even sure if Jogs cash balance from stockopedia includes the recent raise. You don’t need to read a lot to know the answer to that.
There are a fair number of people who provide a contrasting downside view .. when it’s structured I really welcome that.. it makes me think about the choices I make and the why…. But IMV this is so biased in one direction it’s a shock show
I take some comfort in knowing that only ~ 700 people follow them…
I wonder if WHI in their comments recently around ignoring negative sentiment, knew that this was on the horizon.
As always DYOR and this is just IMHO. I know little about the industry, but I read a lot of perspectives and try to get a sense of balance from that.
Just for clarification: ref "Maybe a farminee who disagrees with Ricky Einstein by thinking there might be a few barrels of oil in the GBA might agree to fund JOG's share of Phase 1 costs. wdik?"...............
..........I should have added: "with repayment out of JOG's share of production revenue when that starts clocking up at a rate of (supposedly) c.40k bpd".........
I also meant to say the clueless clown in the video more than implied the GBA's potential oil is nothing special in terms of size. Really? He also made no mention of the fact the oil is API 33°. I struggle to understand why JOG has so many detractors - people who seem determined to see it fail. All a bit odd.
Fundamentals always win in the end (or so people like Warren Buffett would have us believe - and I see no reason to disagree with him, even if there have been times recently when I have doubted that philosophy applies in modern times).
I don't want to influence anyone with my thoughts and/or hopes. Each individual should form his/her own views - oil is a high risk business and there are no guarantees.
I have a feeling the high level of sales (all reported broadly together) might involve one or more of the recent subscribers to the placing cutting its/their losses. Maybe inc a fund manager who was hoping to make a quick buck by buying at an artificially low price as a result of someone whispering to the market JOG was about to do an equity raise. Who can say? Why would anyone else be selling in volume at this particular time? I'm glad it seems to have back-fired on whoever the sellers were (assuming it was more than one) if it was the case. I hope that with the overhang cleared, the SP can now start to recover.
I need everything to speed up a notch or two................
A damning indictment if ever there was one by Richard whatever his name is. The older bald bloke seemed embarrassed, given his late attempts at moderation, as Ricky got more and more animated. How many times did he tell us he'd sold. If his presentation hadn't contained so many basic errors, it might be worrying. I guess we'll know soon enough if we've been had, when we find out whether the forecast widespread industry interest in the GBA actually materialises .
Evidently Ricky Einstein, after consulting with his unidentified mate who's supposedly a FTSE 100 oilco expert, thinks he knows more than Schlumberger and Vysus - both of which one would be naturally inclined to believe know rather more about the mechanics of an industry in which they have the highest reputations. And JOG's people too. Why do some who have had no access to the data used by experts to formulate opinions they're prepared to risk their reputations on believe they know better? A smelly rat is detectable.
You can question whether all the judgments made by a small but experienced team of people in a small, under-capitalised entity,, have been 100% right to date, but I don't think you can question their choice of technical advisers. They have always sought to appoint the best; of that there can be no doubt. I am certainly in no position to make judgments on either the views of JOG's senior people, or those of its first rate industry advisers. I would never presume to do so because I have no relevant expertise.
I'm still optimistic. imv the present risk/reward ratio supports investment. I see a farm proving difficult, given the numbers involved. I've played around a bit with these and can't get to a scenario where JOG can make it work by farming out (say) 50-70% for a 75-90% carry on the £1bn Phase 1 costs. 50% for a 75% carry would imply a cost to the farminee of $9.39pb (80m barrels of 2C for £750m) - way too high. 70% for a 90% carry (112m barrels for $900k) - $8 pb - ditto. More to the point, in scenario 1 JOG would be left with 80m barrels but still have to find £200m. In scenario 2 JOG would be left with only 48mb. The market would make a meal of, either scenario, which would prevent an equity raise on terms acceptable to shareholders who would be diluted in spades if resorting to "bondholders" was to be avoided. These are usually hedge funds - the types who saw off HUR's pesky former owners and put XEL out of business. Maybe a farminee who disagrees with Ricky Einstein by thinking there might be a few barrels of oil in the GBA might agree to fund JOG's share of Phase 1 costs. wdik? Phases 2 and 3 are of lesser significance because payment could (theoretically) be made out of production revenue.
Ans? get someone interested, flirt for a while, then proceed along the lines of: "look, this is too difficult - how about we buy JOG @ $3 pb?" "We wouldn't take any less than $4". "$3.50 - final offer". "Done"
Yes it is quite funny, others are also questioning the prevailing narrative (& what broker notes are saying) - this (from Portfolio Matters) is very good summary indeed I think https://youtu.be/_3-_uQXbzrw a fair assessment of JOG's "basket of opportunity"
Daniel Slater applies a risked value per share of 917p (1839p unrisked) to JOG's shares. He sets a target price of 750p for reasons best known to himself. God help him if he thinks he can predict the future brain impulses of some of the types who infest this territory....................